|  | raw conversion of professional photos | | |
| | | KB |  |
|  Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: raw conversion of professional photos |  |
| |  | |
Over the past year I've been reworking a local photographer's images
for print projects overseas, some of the content I drum scanned way
back in 1990 and many have been scanned by who knows who, my job was/
is to create some synergy within the legacy content that was drum
scanned and the digital content my client now produces.
I have to admit I'm a bit stumped at the raw conversion workflow, many
years ago, back before hi-end digital, we always had an original to
compare to, now I find myself rebuilding the image in PS with layers
of complexity that I never experienced before. The outcome seems so
uncertain because I have no visual reference. How is this overcome,
what could I be doing different to improve the initial conversion of
these images to at the very least get me half way to meet a
professional photographers expectations. I'm not dead in the water
here, we've pulled off some nice stuff but I'm quite puzzled by the
efforts required to perfect these images.
There's got to be a better way, I know in my heart I'm doing something
wrong!
KB |
| |
| | | saycheez | |
| | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: raw conversion of professional photos | |
| | | |
Doubtless you already realize this:
If working with a film transparency the image is what it is with no
assurance that colors were accurately recorded. Create the same image under
identical conditions with different film stocks and the results, as we all
know, are visibly different.
Your client can take an image of a commonly available gray/black/white card
during a shooting session to provide you a reference point--a common
strategy if "accurate" color is the main concern.
In my albeit not universal experience many "professional" image processors
forego accuracy altogether. If presented with a portrait of, e.g., a
caucasian subject they tune skin tones to a predetermined range of rgb
values. This is hardly "accurate" but is usually pleasing to the client.
If you are distressed over the serious deficiencies of the Adobe raw
converter in PS you are not alone in your feelings.
Hopefully CS4 will dispense with that monstrosity and open all images on the
desktop with all tools available in non-destructive fashion, rather than the
current one-way direction of the converter and its many ill documented
adjustment tools. For one thing, wouldn't it be nice to open a raw image and
have access to the curves tool in PS as your first tool instead of having to
do whatever you do in the converter and then move the image to PS? |
| |
| | | Kurt Knoll | |
| | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: raw conversion of professional photos | |
| | | |
This is exactly the problem I have right now. My Photoshop CS will not open
a raw file from my Canon Rebel XTIS Camera in Photoshop and I have therefore
to us The Canon utility program that came with the camera first converting
it to a tiff file and then use Photoshop to do further processing there.
Kurt Knoll.
"saycheez" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cAogk.18061$Ri.11233@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: | Doubtless you already realize this:
If working with a film transparency the image is what it is with no
assurance that colors were accurately recorded. Create the same image
under identical conditions with different film stocks and the results, as
we all know, are visibly different.
Your client can take an image of a commonly available gray/black/white
card during a shooting session to provide you a reference point--a common
strategy if "accurate" color is the main concern.
In my albeit not universal experience many "professional" image processors
forego accuracy altogether. If presented with a portrait of, e.g., a
caucasian subject they tune skin tones to a predetermined range of rgb
values. This is hardly "accurate" but is usually pleasing to the client.
If you are distressed over the serious deficiencies of the Adobe raw
converter in PS you are not alone in your feelings.
Hopefully CS4 will dispense with that monstrosity and open all images on
the desktop with all tools available in non-destructive fashion, rather
than the current one-way direction of the converter and its many ill
documented adjustment tools. For one thing, wouldn't it be nice to open a
raw image and have access to the curves tool in PS as your first tool
instead of having to do whatever you do in the converter and then move the
image to PS? |
|
| |
| | | catfish@invalid.address.c | |
| | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: raw conversion of professional photos | |
Kurt,
make sure you have the latest camera raw plugin
here is a link to camera raw candidate (beta) 4.5
LINK
and here is a link to camera raw 4.4.1
LINK
"Kurt Knoll" <kknoll3@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | This is exactly the problem I have right now. My Photoshop CS will not open
a raw file from my Canon Rebel XTIS Camera in Photoshop and I have therefore
to us The Canon utility program that came with the camera first converting
it to a tiff file and then use Photoshop to do further processing there.
Kurt Knoll. |
|
| |
| | | KB | |
| | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: raw conversion of professional photos | |
| | | |
On Jul 19, 1:13 pm, "catf...@invalid.address.com"
<catf...@invalid.address.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Kurt,
make sure you have the latest camera raw plugin
here is a link to camera raw candidate (beta) 4.5http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_4.5
and here is a link to camera raw 4.4.1http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html
"Kurt Knoll" <kkno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is exactly the problem I have right now. My Photoshop CS will not open
a raw file from my Canon Rebel XTIS Camera in Photoshop and I have therefore
to us The Canon utility program that came with the camera first converting
it to a tiff file and then use Photoshop to do further processing there.
Kurt Knoll.
|
To me it seems that the real problem here is not so much the lack of a
visual reference, gray balance and pure hue targets, which we had
strapped on a drum in a viewing booth during trials, but with digital
it's the poor image quality that your stranded with upon the initial
conversion process regardless of the tools used. I realize we have the
ability to revert without destroying the original captured data,
yeeha! assuming you can recreate the good moves and compensate for the
bad decisions one initially made.
Today it's like your handed this shoe box full of crapola and forced
to pound the content into submission. I know the more you have to push
the more the image breaks down. This is a major step back in my head,
don't get me wrong, digital is the way to go but holy jesus! the
effort it takes to optimize and sharpen that raw data is painful. Now
if your divorced from the shoot itself like I am, your having to reach
inside the authors head and extrapolate from that "hi-end" digitally
captured data and target the vision and expectations of the artist.
Outside of hovering over the shoulder as they hit the button and
taking a mental picture, I'm still baffled by the tools and workflow.
KB |
| |
| | | erpy | |
| | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: raw conversion of professional photos | |
| | | |
KB ha scritto:
| Quote: | On Jul 19, 1:13 pm, "catf...@invalid.address.com"
catf...@invalid.address.com> wrote:
Kurt,
make sure you have the latest camera raw plugin
here is a link to camera raw candidate (beta) 4.5http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_4.5
and here is a link to camera raw 4.4.1http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html
"Kurt Knoll" <kkno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is exactly the problem I have right now. My Photoshop CS will not open
a raw file from my Canon Rebel XTIS Camera in Photoshop and I have therefore
to us The Canon utility program that came with the camera first converting
it to a tiff file and then use Photoshop to do further processing there.
Kurt Knoll.
To me it seems that the real problem here is not so much the lack of a
visual reference, gray balance and pure hue targets, which we had
strapped on a drum in a viewing booth during trials, but with digital
it's the poor image quality that your stranded with upon the initial
conversion process regardless of the tools used. I realize we have the
ability to revert without destroying the original captured data,
yeeha! assuming you can recreate the good moves and compensate for the
bad decisions one initially made.
Today it's like your handed this shoe box full of crapola and forced
to pound the content into submission. I know the more you have to push
the more the image breaks down. This is a major step back in my head,
don't get me wrong, digital is the way to go but holy jesus! the
effort it takes to optimize and sharpen that raw data is painful. Now
if your divorced from the shoot itself like I am, your having to reach
inside the authors head and extrapolate from that "hi-end" digitally
captured data and target the vision and expectations of the artist.
Outside of hovering over the shoulder as they hit the button and
taking a mental picture, I'm still baffled by the tools and workflow.
KB
|
Have you ever wondered why a 10+ Mpixels RAW file only weighs around 6
to 8 Mbytes (depending on the camera maker), while the same image in
TIFF weighs 30+ Mbytes ? Any CCD camera sensor only *captures* around
1/3 of the data needed at a given resolution. That's the maximum you get.
In order to restore the *missing* data when processing a RAW file,
software algorithms are applied (demosaicing). The better the algorithm
the better the image. (and there isn't a standard algorithm either, thus
results may vary...thus forget about *the original picture*)
In the end, that's all you get after spending $800+ on your professional
digital camera.  ) |
| |
| | | Kurt Knoll | |
| | Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: raw conversion of professional photos | |
| | | |
"erpy" <info@forwardgames.com> wrote in message
news:48828265$0$41659$4fafbaef@reader4.news.tin.it...
KB ha scritto:
On Jul 19, 1:13 pm, "catf...@invalid.address.com"
<catf...@invalid.address.com> wrote:
Kurt,
make sure you have the latest camera raw plugin
here is a link to camera raw candidate (beta)
4.5http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Camera_Raw_4.5
and here is a link to camera raw
4.4.1http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html
"Kurt Knoll" <kkno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is exactly the problem I have right now. My Photoshop CS will not open
a raw file from my Canon Rebel XTIS Camera in Photoshop and I have therefore
to us The Canon utility program that came with the camera first converting
it to a tiff file and then use Photoshop to do further processing there.
Kurt Knoll.
To me it seems that the real problem here is not so much the lack of a
visual reference, gray balance and pure hue targets, which we had
strapped on a drum in a viewing booth during trials, but with digital
it's the poor image quality that your stranded with upon the initial
conversion process regardless of the tools used. I realize we have the
ability to revert without destroying the original captured data,
yeeha! assuming you can recreate the good moves and compensate for the
bad decisions one initially made.
Today it's like your handed this shoe box full of crapola and forced
to pound the content into submission. I know the more you have to push
the more the image breaks down. This is a major step back in my head,
don't get me wrong, digital is the way to go but holy jesus! the
effort it takes to optimize and sharpen that raw data is painful. Now
if your divorced from the shoot itself like I am, your having to reach
inside the authors head and extrapolate from that "hi-end" digitally
captured data and target the vision and expectations of the artist.
Outside of hovering over the shoulder as they hit the button and
taking a mental picture, I'm still baffled by the tools and workflow.
KB
Have you ever wondered why a 10+ Mpixels RAW file only weighs around 6 to 8
Mbytes (depending on the camera maker), while the same image in TIFF weighs
30+ Mbytes ? Any CCD camera sensor only *captures* around 1/3 of the data
needed at a given resolution. That's the maximum you get.
In order to restore the *missing* data when processing a RAW file, software
algorithms are applied (demosaicing). The better the algorithm the better
the image. (and there isn't a standard algorithm either, thus results may
vary...thus forget about *the original picture*)
In the end, that's all you get after spending $800+ on your professional
digital camera. )
For now i am oksy hoping they will come out with and updatet version for the
raw conversion.
KK |
| |
| | | Boskey | |
| | Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:12 am Post subject: Re: raw conversion of professional photos | |
| Quote: |
For now i am oksy hoping they will come out with and updatet version for
the raw conversion.
KK
|
Which version of Photoshop CS do you have? I looked through the thread and
seem to have missed you mentioning your PS version. The updated Adobe
Camera Raw listed in this thread works only with PS CS3. |
| |
| | | Kurt Knoll | |
| | Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:46 am Post subject: Re: raw conversion of professional photos | |
The only version i do have is Photoshop CS. The plugin version here i
already have but does not work with the Rebel cr2 version.
Kurt Knoll.
"Boskey" <Whoknows@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:z2ygk.3570$W64.1068@newsfe09.iad...
| Quote: |
For now i am oksy hoping they will come out with and updatet version for
the raw conversion.
KK
Which version of Photoshop CS do you have? I looked through the thread
and seem to have missed you mentioning your PS version. The updated Adobe
Camera Raw listed in this thread works only with PS CS3.
|
|
| |
| | | Boskey | |
| | Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: Re: raw conversion of professional photos | |
"Kurt Knoll" <kknoll3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Cyygk.82331$kx.63623@pd7urf3no...
| Quote: | The only version i do have is Photoshop CS. The plugin version here i
already have but does not work with the Rebel cr2 version.
Kurt Knoll.
LINK |
About half way down this page it reads, "Camera Raw 4.0 and greater is not
compatible with Photoshop CS2." I believe you will need to upgrade your PS
software to the latest version to get the ACR support for your camera model. |
| |
| Page 1 of 2 .:. Goto page 1, 2 Next | |
|
|
